The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.
The Sizewell C Project
Received 19 August 2020
From Denise Johnson
“1. • The worst scenario from a nuclear reactor accident would be multiple deaths, injuries and environmental degradation. Spent nuclear fuel storage creates terrorism risks. No project is worth those risks, when safer alternatives are available. ____________________________________________________ 2. • The Climate Change risks to SZC come from increasingly unpredictable weather threats to its safe operation on this vulnerable coastal site, from flooding and tidal surges, which may well lie outside future 10 year modelling parameters. ____________________________________________________ 3. Environmental issues • The East Suffolk coast has important designated conservation areas. Mitigation Habitats of equivalent value cannot be created quickly enough. • Any damage to SSSIs is unacceptable. Their complexity cannot be recreated artificially. • Hydrological changes caused by Sizewell C presence could affect RSPB Minsmere’s sensitive water level management. • Will Marsh Harriers use the mitigation areas chosen by EDF? Are they actually Marsh Harrier ‘ready’? What about other key species? • Agencies have repeatedly stated in writing that inadequate ecological detail has been provided to allow them to make a suitably informed response regarding potential damage to existing sites, or to mitigation proposals. • ‘Low’ carbon applies only to the electricity generation operation – not the total project. • The proposed rail route needs environmental impact assessments for both day and night time use. By-pass routes should be fully environmentally assessed. • A beach landing will disrupt marine wildlife and reduce recreational and tourism value. _______________________________________________________ 4. • As a Recycling Officer (Suffolk Coastal District Council, 1997 - 2001) I saw then and now, that, when engaged, the local community have been highly motivated to support local environmental schemes, eg. Recycling, local nature reserves, Cycling schemes, Energy conservation, so their environment is obviously of high value to them. _____________________________________________________ 5. • Impacts/legacy of SZC on the local community : there was a local rise in unemployment in Leiston 1993 – 94 after construction of SZB. In Leiston 21.5% of children under 16 lived in low-income families in 2017 (cf. 13.8% in Suffolk). Not a great Sizewell B legacy. [Redacted] . • Job creation is a key marketing point for EDF. What will happen after construction of SZC? • The local community must be protected at all stages • I have seen in a large county like Suffolk how ‘low power’ psychology can affect some in rural communities managed by centralised urban councils/governments. This can reduce public participation in the planning process, and put statistics presented in support of projects open to challenge. • Inadequate detail in surveys done by applicants has already been mentioned - this undermines the possibility of other agencies being able to wield equal influence in the planning process. ___________________________________________________________ 6. • Sustainable local industries will need support throughout the SZC project • 37.9 million tourists in East Suffolk in 2018 contributed £671,710,000 (East Suffolk Council). • Farming is a key local industry and should be supported to thrive and diversify. ________________________________________________________ 7. • The high level of economic, environmental and social risks that the Sizewell C nuclear power plant presents are not acceptable on this sensitive site in exchange for a few years of ‘cheap’ electricity. ______________________________________”